Visitation by family began to be refused in middle August. The Detention House repeated visitation refusal and permission to his family as well, and as far as We know, all visitations were refused after the last visitation around April 30, 2008 for attorneys and June 10 for family.
Our older sister and younger brother were the last people in our family who were able to meet our father. We heard he was in a terrible mental and physical condition, with the skin on his face being peeled, red and swollen.
Our younger brother who met our father after a long time was shocked by his condition, and worryingly asked him, "You look red here and there. Is it a rash or did you get bitten by something," but no answer came back as a matter of course.
We also think about another possibility. The Detention House concluded not to let anyone meet our father, because our brother who is only a boy worried about not only his mental state but also his physical condition.
In later years, we requested adult guardianship with our father as a ward and investigators and expert witnesses from a family court tried to meet him; however the Tokyo Detention Court rejected it. A family court exclusively handles judgment and mediation relating to family and household as well as judgment on criminal cases involving juveniles. Adult guardianship is a system to request a guardian to a family court for a person with insufficient ability to make decisions due to mental disability (e.g., intellectual disability, mental disability, dementia, etc.) so that the guardian can help the person not to suffer from the disabilities.
As long as We know, our father has not been seen by outside people since June 10, 2008. He was shielded by the Tokyo Detention House in a physically and mentally worn-out condition as last seen by our older sister and younger brother.
Tuesday, February 27, 2018
Sunday, February 25, 2018
＃22 JFBA's warning to provide psychological treatment
The appeal was turned down at the end of March 2006, followed by an immediate appeal and special appeal filed by the defense attorneys. During this period, the seventh psychiatrist prepared a written opinion. However, both the immediate appeal and special appeal were turned down, and judgment was finalized on September 15 of the same year.
The Tokyo Detention House began to refuse visitation by the defense attorneys in April 2007.
The Detention House began to refuse visitation when things calmed down, i.e., almost seven months after the relationship between the Tokyo High Court and our father was disconnected; therefore this visitation refusal was obviously initiated by the Tokyo Detention House. Even still, the Tokyo Detention House tried to save appearances in front of the defense attorneys, claiming that visitation naturally became difficult for our father's own convenience.
"×○○○○○○○×××××○○×××○○××○○××○×××××○○○×××××××○
(○ indicates successful visitation upon visitation request and × indicates unsuccessful visitation.)"
As indicated in the above, they tried to create a flow of natural inevitability of visitation, rather than quickly refusing all visitations. When they refused visitation, they claimed that it was due to our father's condition or problem, saying that "they talked to him but he did not try to move", etc. However, our father was not moving on his own from the first place, because he was always transported on the wheelchair.
The Japan Federation of Bar Association (federation of local bar associations in Japan established under the Lawyers Act; abbreviated as JFBA below) warned the Tokyo Detention House where our father is imprisoned to allow him to receive proper psychiatric treatment under the "petition to protect human rights" on November 6 of the same year.
JFBA's Civil Liberties Commission pointed out in the investigation report that there is a full-time psychiatrist at the Tokyo Detention House but "basic psychiatric treatment has not been provided", requesting examination by an outside psychiatrist as well as prompt drug therapy or treatment at a medical prison. However, the Tokyo Detention House never provided medical treatment for our father who "cannot be ill" or whose illness "should not be treated".
The Tokyo Detention House began to refuse visitation by the defense attorneys in April 2007.
The Detention House began to refuse visitation when things calmed down, i.e., almost seven months after the relationship between the Tokyo High Court and our father was disconnected; therefore this visitation refusal was obviously initiated by the Tokyo Detention House. Even still, the Tokyo Detention House tried to save appearances in front of the defense attorneys, claiming that visitation naturally became difficult for our father's own convenience.
"×○○○○○○○×××××○○×××○○××○○××○×××××○○○×××××××○
(○ indicates successful visitation upon visitation request and × indicates unsuccessful visitation.)"
As indicated in the above, they tried to create a flow of natural inevitability of visitation, rather than quickly refusing all visitations. When they refused visitation, they claimed that it was due to our father's condition or problem, saying that "they talked to him but he did not try to move", etc. However, our father was not moving on his own from the first place, because he was always transported on the wheelchair.
The Japan Federation of Bar Association (federation of local bar associations in Japan established under the Lawyers Act; abbreviated as JFBA below) warned the Tokyo Detention House where our father is imprisoned to allow him to receive proper psychiatric treatment under the "petition to protect human rights" on November 6 of the same year.
JFBA's Civil Liberties Commission pointed out in the investigation report that there is a full-time psychiatrist at the Tokyo Detention House but "basic psychiatric treatment has not been provided", requesting examination by an outside psychiatrist as well as prompt drug therapy or treatment at a medical prison. However, the Tokyo Detention House never provided medical treatment for our father who "cannot be ill" or whose illness "should not be treated".
Friday, February 23, 2018
＃21 Do babies have litigation ability?
Our father's appeal was turned down on March 27, 2006 on the basis of "expert opinion" written by Dr. Nishiyama, the expert witness for the Court, claiming that he is not in a stupor but normal, as long as he "holds or eats things".
As We previously wrote, it is illegal for the Court to handle the document prepared by Dr. Nishiyama as a formal "expert opinion" as he ignored the legal procedure and is not qualified as an expert witness. However, as the Court took the initiative in violating the Constitution and laws in our father's trial, Dr. Nishiyama's "expert opinion" was treated as the expert opinion.
The court deliberately ignored more than 10 opinions on our father's mental condition as well as objections to Nishiyama's expert opinion written by six psychiatrists to whom the defense attorneys requested diagnosis. We don't know much in detail, but the psychiatrists who accepted the request of the defense attorneys were all experienced with formal psychiatric evaluation for courts and very renowned doctors, including the teacher of Dr. Nishiyama as previously mentioned.
Our father is a target of criticism in society, and there is no need for these six psychiatrists to fabricate facts for him. On the other hand, Dr. Nishiyama performed his evaluation under pressure from the Court, nation and society, and might have had no choice but to fabricate the expert opinion.
It is hard for us to understand the claim stating that there is litigation capacity if one can "hold or eat things." Infants can hold or eat things. Does it mean that they have the litigation capacity? If you talk to a baby,
"The defendant went to ○○ in ○○ City of ○○ Prefecture on ○○ ○○, ○○….."
The baby would only say "baboo?" Our father cannot even say "baboo?"
Moreover, our father is an adult over 50 years old, not an infant. It is hard to believe that an adult who cannot even say "baboo?" has litigation capacity.
As We previously wrote, it is illegal for the Court to handle the document prepared by Dr. Nishiyama as a formal "expert opinion" as he ignored the legal procedure and is not qualified as an expert witness. However, as the Court took the initiative in violating the Constitution and laws in our father's trial, Dr. Nishiyama's "expert opinion" was treated as the expert opinion.
The court deliberately ignored more than 10 opinions on our father's mental condition as well as objections to Nishiyama's expert opinion written by six psychiatrists to whom the defense attorneys requested diagnosis. We don't know much in detail, but the psychiatrists who accepted the request of the defense attorneys were all experienced with formal psychiatric evaluation for courts and very renowned doctors, including the teacher of Dr. Nishiyama as previously mentioned.
Our father is a target of criticism in society, and there is no need for these six psychiatrists to fabricate facts for him. On the other hand, Dr. Nishiyama performed his evaluation under pressure from the Court, nation and society, and might have had no choice but to fabricate the expert opinion.
It is hard for us to understand the claim stating that there is litigation capacity if one can "hold or eat things." Infants can hold or eat things. Does it mean that they have the litigation capacity? If you talk to a baby,
"The defendant went to ○○ in ○○ City of ○○ Prefecture on ○○ ○○, ○○….."
The baby would only say "baboo?" Our father cannot even say "baboo?"
Moreover, our father is an adult over 50 years old, not an infant. It is hard to believe that an adult who cannot even say "baboo?" has litigation capacity.
Wednesday, February 21, 2018
＃20 Is it normal if you can hold or eat things ?
Dr. Nishiyama concluded that our father has a litigation capacity in his "expert opinion".
The reason was amazing: because our father is able to hold and eat things…
According to Dr. Nishiyama, not speaking while being able to hold or eat things is not a stupor (mental illness), but silence chosen on our father’s own will; therefore he is able to say things, i.e., has communication ability = litigation capacity.
Dr. Nishiyama replaced the communication ability with the "ability to say things", and concluded that one is able to communicate as long as he has the ability to say things; therefore has litigation capacity.
On the contrary, our father is not even "capable of saying things" in reality. Thus, Dr. Nishiyama considered that our father does not say things even though he is capably of speaking.
We previously wrote about the litigation capacity, which is to be determined according to the defendant's proper understanding on the details of trial as well as the ability to take proper actions.
There is no other case but our father's where the ability to hold or eat things was considered as having litigation ability.
As We write this explanation, We are totally unable to understand the claim made by Dr. Nishiyama.
When the defense attorneys explained this to us, We asked,
"Why is it considered as normal because he is able to hold or eat things? Even babies are able to do these things…."
The defense attorneys lost words. They seem to have been perplexed by the "expert opinion" that was far from making sense.
One of the doctors who wrote an opinion stating that our father is ill and needs medical treatment was a teacher of Dr. Nishiyama. That doctor was angry with Dr. Nishiyama and said, "Did Nishiyama lose pride as a doctor ?"
After Dr. Nishiyama's expert opinion was issued, the defense attorneys submitted to the Court a total of five documents, including three written objections against Dr. Nishiyama's expert opinion written by psychiatrists as well as two supplementary letters containing objections. At this point, six psychiatrists had written opinions, etc.
However, opinions written by psychiatrists did not mean anything to the Court that had already made this unshakable conclusion prior to the "expert opinion".
The reason was amazing: because our father is able to hold and eat things…
According to Dr. Nishiyama, not speaking while being able to hold or eat things is not a stupor (mental illness), but silence chosen on our father’s own will; therefore he is able to say things, i.e., has communication ability = litigation capacity.
Dr. Nishiyama replaced the communication ability with the "ability to say things", and concluded that one is able to communicate as long as he has the ability to say things; therefore has litigation capacity.
On the contrary, our father is not even "capable of saying things" in reality. Thus, Dr. Nishiyama considered that our father does not say things even though he is capably of speaking.
We previously wrote about the litigation capacity, which is to be determined according to the defendant's proper understanding on the details of trial as well as the ability to take proper actions.
There is no other case but our father's where the ability to hold or eat things was considered as having litigation ability.
As We write this explanation, We are totally unable to understand the claim made by Dr. Nishiyama.
When the defense attorneys explained this to us, We asked,
"Why is it considered as normal because he is able to hold or eat things? Even babies are able to do these things…."
The defense attorneys lost words. They seem to have been perplexed by the "expert opinion" that was far from making sense.
One of the doctors who wrote an opinion stating that our father is ill and needs medical treatment was a teacher of Dr. Nishiyama. That doctor was angry with Dr. Nishiyama and said, "Did Nishiyama lose pride as a doctor ?"
After Dr. Nishiyama's expert opinion was issued, the defense attorneys submitted to the Court a total of five documents, including three written objections against Dr. Nishiyama's expert opinion written by psychiatrists as well as two supplementary letters containing objections. At this point, six psychiatrists had written opinions, etc.
However, opinions written by psychiatrists did not mean anything to the Court that had already made this unshakable conclusion prior to the "expert opinion".
Monday, February 19, 2018
＃19 About the litigation capacity
Litigation capacity is defined as the “ability to differentiate (clearly distinguish the difference in things) material interests as a defendant and defend accordingly in a reasonable (appropriate) manner”.
It means that presence of litigation capacity is determined in accordance with whether or not the defendant properly understands the details of the trial and is able to take proper actions.
However, Dr. Nishiyama who was never able to communicate with our father could not have understood whether or not our father was equipped with such ability. On the other hand, Dr. Nishiyama saw the situation to sufficiently believe our father’s illness, such as the twilight state, seizure, irrelevant nodding, etc.
There were only facts to prove illness, without being able to obtain the evidence of his normality. Therefore, Dr. Nishiyama developed his own argument about the litigation capacity in his own “expert opinion”.
It means that presence of litigation capacity is determined in accordance with whether or not the defendant properly understands the details of the trial and is able to take proper actions.
However, Dr. Nishiyama who was never able to communicate with our father could not have understood whether or not our father was equipped with such ability. On the other hand, Dr. Nishiyama saw the situation to sufficiently believe our father’s illness, such as the twilight state, seizure, irrelevant nodding, etc.
There were only facts to prove illness, without being able to obtain the evidence of his normality. Therefore, Dr. Nishiyama developed his own argument about the litigation capacity in his own “expert opinion”.
Saturday, February 17, 2018
＃18 Dr. Nishiyama gave up on the possibility of psychological examination
Dr. Nishiyama considered it impossible to perform a psychological examination of our father, and did not attempt to do it.
He also recognized the twilight state of our father but ignored it, by giving a reason that his observation was fragmentary. As an expert witness, he only needed to observe for a longer time.
Furthermore, he recognized attacks like seizures in our father but did not take it into consideration as his medical condition, although it was so serious that employees at the Detention House would worriedly go to talk to him.
Irregular speech and orientation (basic understanding of the situation including the current year, month, time, where he is, etc.) at the time when our father's condition was still moderate was concluded as fabrication.
Dr. Nishiyama agreed that communication was not successful, stating that there seemed to be no relationship between questions he asked and the noise sounding like nodding that our father was uttering at the time of visitation. Our father was far from being able to talk in front of Dr. Nishiyama as well.
Then, what did Dr. Nishiyama spend 168 days for? Did he only push the predetermined conclusion into the text titled as the expert opinion? Is it because it took so long to come up with the text to cover up failure of logic? We had no choice but to suspect it, as the expert opinion by Dr. Nishiyama was logically broken and did not make sense.
We would like to touch on the details of Dr. Nishiyama's "expert opinion" later.
He also recognized the twilight state of our father but ignored it, by giving a reason that his observation was fragmentary. As an expert witness, he only needed to observe for a longer time.
Furthermore, he recognized attacks like seizures in our father but did not take it into consideration as his medical condition, although it was so serious that employees at the Detention House would worriedly go to talk to him.
Irregular speech and orientation (basic understanding of the situation including the current year, month, time, where he is, etc.) at the time when our father's condition was still moderate was concluded as fabrication.
Dr. Nishiyama agreed that communication was not successful, stating that there seemed to be no relationship between questions he asked and the noise sounding like nodding that our father was uttering at the time of visitation. Our father was far from being able to talk in front of Dr. Nishiyama as well.
Then, what did Dr. Nishiyama spend 168 days for? Did he only push the predetermined conclusion into the text titled as the expert opinion? Is it because it took so long to come up with the text to cover up failure of logic? We had no choice but to suspect it, as the expert opinion by Dr. Nishiyama was logically broken and did not make sense.
We would like to touch on the details of Dr. Nishiyama's "expert opinion" later.
Thursday, February 15, 2018
＃17 Expert opinion based on erroneous records without examining the content
The records of the Detention House referred to by Dr. Nishiyama contained some obvious deceit. For example, the Detention House claims that our father eats meals without spilling a drop of soup. When We were caring for him, however, he would frequently spill because he was blind. When he ate meals at home, We would cover his clothes with bath towels on his chest and knees to avoid soiling them. It was also the role of his caregiver to hold his hands to show him the location of chopsticks, forks, and spoons.
A jail is a closed room that cannot be seen by the eyes of a third party. Records can be fabricated very easily.
The Detention House would lose face if our father lied neglected in serious illness. Moreover, our father was not seriously ill in the beginning, but deteriorated over time. If it is possible to conclude that our father was "malingering", they won't be blamed about not allowing medical care but helping the deterioration of his symptoms.
In other words, the Detention House cannot be a fair institution at least for our father. Dr. Nishiyama performed the evaluation on the premise that there is no doubt in the accuracy of the report by the Detention House.
Why did Dr. Nishiyama only refer to the record of the unfair Detention House to give a solid expert opinion? There must have been many opportunities to observe our father during mealtime with his own eyes.
A jail is a closed room that cannot be seen by the eyes of a third party. Records can be fabricated very easily.
The Detention House would lose face if our father lied neglected in serious illness. Moreover, our father was not seriously ill in the beginning, but deteriorated over time. If it is possible to conclude that our father was "malingering", they won't be blamed about not allowing medical care but helping the deterioration of his symptoms.
In other words, the Detention House cannot be a fair institution at least for our father. Dr. Nishiyama performed the evaluation on the premise that there is no doubt in the accuracy of the report by the Detention House.
Why did Dr. Nishiyama only refer to the record of the unfair Detention House to give a solid expert opinion? There must have been many opportunities to observe our father during mealtime with his own eyes.
Tuesday, February 13, 2018
＃16 "Dr. Nishiyama's expert opinion" that silenced inconvenient facts
Results of Dr. Nishiyama's "expert opinion" that took a long 168 days were finally issued on Februray 20, 2006.
We heard that the "expert opinion" by Dr. Nishiyama included a total of 88 pages. However, 65 pages contained the record of public trial and record of the Tokyo Detention House, and the "expert opinion" by Dr. Nishiyama only encompassed 23 pages.
More than that, only four pages out of the 23-page "expert opinion" referred to the condition of our father actually observed by Dr. Nishiyama.
Since this "expert opinion" was originally obtained on the premise that the "declaration of the litigation capacity is unshakable" by the Court, We vaguely imagined that the conclusion had already been made from the beginning. However, the "expert opinion" by Dr. Nishiyama was far beyond our imagination.
We heard that the "expert opinion" by Dr. Nishiyama included a total of 88 pages. However, 65 pages contained the record of public trial and record of the Tokyo Detention House, and the "expert opinion" by Dr. Nishiyama only encompassed 23 pages.
More than that, only four pages out of the 23-page "expert opinion" referred to the condition of our father actually observed by Dr. Nishiyama.
Since this "expert opinion" was originally obtained on the premise that the "declaration of the litigation capacity is unshakable" by the Court, We vaguely imagined that the conclusion had already been made from the beginning. However, the "expert opinion" by Dr. Nishiyama was far beyond our imagination.
Sunday, February 11, 2018
＃15 Ignoring the Code of Criminal Procedure? Cannot be true…..
The defense attorneys felt a sense of danger in the approach taken by the Court without any inhibition; therefore they submitted a document to request an oath by expert witnesses in a public courtroom, examination of expert witnesses, etc. in accordance with the stipulation on expert opinions under the Code of Criminal Procedure.
However, the court "unofficially" put the psychiatrist Dr. Nishiyama selected as an expert witness for the Court under oath and did not examine the expert witness according to the stipulation on "expert opinions" under the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is stipulated in the Code of Criminal Procedure in Japan that for the process of expert opinion, the expert witness is to be put under oath and examined in a public courtroom.
Moreover, the defense team was notified of this information at a later date. The Court probably felt guilty and secretly worked on an unofficial oath, etc. in a closed room without informing the defense team.
The defense attorneys were very surprised and speechless when they learned about this.
The defense attorneys further submitted to the Court a summary of written opinion by the third psychiatrist as well as a written opinion by the fourth psychiatrist, after Dr. Nishiyama was appointed as an "expert witness".
As we observe the approach taken by the Court, it was almost impossible that a right "expert witness" with the pride as a psychiatrist was selected. The only thing that the defense attorneys could do was to have my father examined by as many psychiatrists as possible to obtain written opinions. We think they hoped to collect as broad and fair opinions as possible.
However, the court "unofficially" put the psychiatrist Dr. Nishiyama selected as an expert witness for the Court under oath and did not examine the expert witness according to the stipulation on "expert opinions" under the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is stipulated in the Code of Criminal Procedure in Japan that for the process of expert opinion, the expert witness is to be put under oath and examined in a public courtroom.
Moreover, the defense team was notified of this information at a later date. The Court probably felt guilty and secretly worked on an unofficial oath, etc. in a closed room without informing the defense team.
The defense attorneys were very surprised and speechless when they learned about this.
The defense attorneys further submitted to the Court a summary of written opinion by the third psychiatrist as well as a written opinion by the fourth psychiatrist, after Dr. Nishiyama was appointed as an "expert witness".
As we observe the approach taken by the Court, it was almost impossible that a right "expert witness" with the pride as a psychiatrist was selected. The only thing that the defense attorneys could do was to have my father examined by as many psychiatrists as possible to obtain written opinions. We think they hoped to collect as broad and fair opinions as possible.
Friday, February 9, 2018
＃14 Shadowy "Nishiyama's expert opinion"
The Tokyo High Court determined “not to invoke authority” over the request to suspend the procedure of public trial by the defense attorneys on August 19, 2005. “Not to invoke authority” in this case means not to handle the request by the defense team, i.e., to do nothing.
However, upon introductory remarks that the “declaration of the litigation capacity is unshakable”, the Court made an unprecedented assertion at the same time, “We are carefully considering to ask professionals of psychiatric medicine for an opinion on the presence of the defendant’s litigation capacity in the form of an expert opinion, in accordance with the stipulation on investigation of facts (from the document distributed by the 10th Criminal Division of Tokyo High Court on August 19).”
The introductory remarks that the “declaration is unshakable” obviously indicated that the Court was not expecting a respectable expert opinion. It was evident that the Court put pressure on the “expert witnesses” before the process of expert opinion began.
They might have only needed their favorite scholars who affirm claims by the Court, in order to silence psychiatrists’ opinions submitted by the defense attorneys one after another.
However, upon introductory remarks that the “declaration of the litigation capacity is unshakable”, the Court made an unprecedented assertion at the same time, “We are carefully considering to ask professionals of psychiatric medicine for an opinion on the presence of the defendant’s litigation capacity in the form of an expert opinion, in accordance with the stipulation on investigation of facts (from the document distributed by the 10th Criminal Division of Tokyo High Court on August 19).”
The introductory remarks that the “declaration is unshakable” obviously indicated that the Court was not expecting a respectable expert opinion. It was evident that the Court put pressure on the “expert witnesses” before the process of expert opinion began.
They might have only needed their favorite scholars who affirm claims by the Court, in order to silence psychiatrists’ opinions submitted by the defense attorneys one after another.
Wednesday, February 7, 2018
＃13 Psychiatrists’ written opinions
After the press conference, the Court continued to ignore our father's condition without hesitation.
"Mr. Asahara is obviously ill. However, even the fact of illness will be wiped out unless we do something."
The defense attorneys' fear was quite normal. Both the Court and the Detention House deviate from their essential roles without any reservation.
While judges are not doctors, we are not doctors, either. It is more persuasive if psychiatrists meet and diagnose our father then write an opinion, etc., instead of amateurs like us making a fuss about "being ill".
The defense attorneys desperately searched for psychiatrists, and requested, "Please examine Mr. Asahara. If you feel he is malingering after you see him, we will accept it. Please write what you think as an opinion." Finding a doctor who writes an opinion was not easy, because it was "for Asahara". Yet, the defense attorneys did everything they could, and found psychiatrists who were willing to write opinions.
The defense attorneys requested to suspend the procedure of the second public trial on July 29, 2005.
Five letters were submitted at the time of this request, including opinions and supplementary letters written by two psychiatrists. It was pointed out in the written opinions: "state of serious prison reaction and confusion; no litigation capacity; possibility to be cured with medical treatment."
The Court made their move once again on August 19, as the defense attorneys' action might have annoyed them. It was unprecedentedly determined to have a conditional "expert opinion" to be obtained.
"Mr. Asahara is obviously ill. However, even the fact of illness will be wiped out unless we do something."
The defense attorneys' fear was quite normal. Both the Court and the Detention House deviate from their essential roles without any reservation.
While judges are not doctors, we are not doctors, either. It is more persuasive if psychiatrists meet and diagnose our father then write an opinion, etc., instead of amateurs like us making a fuss about "being ill".
The defense attorneys desperately searched for psychiatrists, and requested, "Please examine Mr. Asahara. If you feel he is malingering after you see him, we will accept it. Please write what you think as an opinion." Finding a doctor who writes an opinion was not easy, because it was "for Asahara". Yet, the defense attorneys did everything they could, and found psychiatrists who were willing to write opinions.
The defense attorneys requested to suspend the procedure of the second public trial on July 29, 2005.
Five letters were submitted at the time of this request, including opinions and supplementary letters written by two psychiatrists. It was pointed out in the written opinions: "state of serious prison reaction and confusion; no litigation capacity; possibility to be cured with medical treatment."
The Court made their move once again on August 19, as the defense attorneys' action might have annoyed them. It was unprecedentedly determined to have a conditional "expert opinion" to be obtained.
Monday, February 5, 2018
＃12 Desire for medial treatment led to….
It was on December 20, 2004, ten days after the Court met our father under the cover of "instruction on the procedure" to twist the argument and determine he was normal, when we appeared at a press conference to say that our father was ill.
The problem was not only the Court that ignored the opinions written by psychiatrists and gave a "diagnosis" like a doctor, but also the Tokyo Detention House that created the "record" of our visitation as if we were able to communicate with our father, and submitted it to the Court.
It was impossible for us to remain silent any longer. It was as clear as day that the more we keep silence, the more false facts would be fabricated.
Our father is not malingering. He is seriously ill, wearing a diaper unable to control even toiletry duties. We sought for medical treatment by making the truth public. It was the only move we could think of as his family in order to have our ill father treated.
If this goes on, our father will be politically treated as “normal” and wiped out, without being able to receive medial treatment or face a fair trial.
As it turned out, the Tokyo Detention House began to interfere with visitation and harass us immediately after the press conference. They were probably unforgiving of us publicizing our father’s condition.
The problem was not only the Court that ignored the opinions written by psychiatrists and gave a "diagnosis" like a doctor, but also the Tokyo Detention House that created the "record" of our visitation as if we were able to communicate with our father, and submitted it to the Court.
It was impossible for us to remain silent any longer. It was as clear as day that the more we keep silence, the more false facts would be fabricated.
Our father is not malingering. He is seriously ill, wearing a diaper unable to control even toiletry duties. We sought for medical treatment by making the truth public. It was the only move we could think of as his family in order to have our ill father treated.
If this goes on, our father will be politically treated as “normal” and wiped out, without being able to receive medial treatment or face a fair trial.
As it turned out, the Tokyo Detention House began to interfere with visitation and harass us immediately after the press conference. They were probably unforgiving of us publicizing our father’s condition.
Saturday, February 3, 2018
＃11 Against the constitutional principle
As described earlier, the procedure was different when we met our father at the Court, and there were other different things.
Specifically, this "instruction on the procedure" was given without notifying the defense attorneys. The Japanese Constitution has a principle to hold a trial in a public courtroom (Article 82 or the Constitution). As the defense attorneys were disputing our father's litigation capacity, conviction for litigation capacity must be established in a public courtroom.
The Court probably thought what they were doing was not a normal action. They secretly met our father, and concluded that he was normal and had vision.
If the defense attorneys were present, a false claim cannot be made against the facts. If the Court claims that our father was able to "understand" because of the "noise" he uttered, the defense attorneys would have corrected it, explaining that he was only making an "irrelevant noise that sounded like nodding" by clarifying the anteroposterior relationship between the noise that sounded like nodding and the story in the situation.
Therefore, we imagine that the Court had to meet our father in a secret place while he did not even know where he was.
They crossed the line as a supposedly fair court.
"Diagnosis" of our father passed by the Court led to a reckless attempt; that is, the Court later uprooted fairness of "expert opinion".
Specifically, this "instruction on the procedure" was given without notifying the defense attorneys. The Japanese Constitution has a principle to hold a trial in a public courtroom (Article 82 or the Constitution). As the defense attorneys were disputing our father's litigation capacity, conviction for litigation capacity must be established in a public courtroom.
The Court probably thought what they were doing was not a normal action. They secretly met our father, and concluded that he was normal and had vision.
If the defense attorneys were present, a false claim cannot be made against the facts. If the Court claims that our father was able to "understand" because of the "noise" he uttered, the defense attorneys would have corrected it, explaining that he was only making an "irrelevant noise that sounded like nodding" by clarifying the anteroposterior relationship between the noise that sounded like nodding and the story in the situation.
Therefore, we imagine that the Court had to meet our father in a secret place while he did not even know where he was.
They crossed the line as a supposedly fair court.
"Diagnosis" of our father passed by the Court led to a reckless attempt; that is, the Court later uprooted fairness of "expert opinion".
Thursday, February 1, 2018
＃10 Is it considered as able to reply by turning to the person?
In addition to the claim of successful conversation with our father because he nodded, We heard the Court's claim that our father "replied" by turning to the Court personnel when they were introduced; therefore they did not receive impression that he was blind.
Our father is completely blind. He had no sight in one of his eyes since he was born, and completely lost sight in the other eye in the early 1990s. To us who had assisted our father and helped his daily living, it is only an illusion to consider that he can see. Is the Court supposed to be a doctor who determines his vision? Did they validly determine that he had vision through tests and observation over a long time?
First of all, We cannot help doubting the response by the Court that tries to make sense out of nonsense, arguing that he "replied" when he simply looked in one direction.
According to Kojien (famous Japanese dictionary), response or responding is described as follows: "to answer after being talked to by someone or being asked a question; answer." Looking at something is not equal to "responding" within the context of Japanese language.
We cannot help suspecting impatience on the side of the Court, as they had to twist the argument to such an excessive extent.
The Court also claimed that our father had a characteristic to respond to the word "defense attorney" with smile. They might have meant that our father was normal but was not able to communicate because the other party was a "defense attorney" which would have been different if it was a judge. They are only trying to make sense out of nonsense, as far as even his family is not successfully communicating with him. Our father just irrelevantly smiles on his own and repeats nodding in front of anyone or whether or not he hears any words or does not hear anything.
Our father is completely blind. He had no sight in one of his eyes since he was born, and completely lost sight in the other eye in the early 1990s. To us who had assisted our father and helped his daily living, it is only an illusion to consider that he can see. Is the Court supposed to be a doctor who determines his vision? Did they validly determine that he had vision through tests and observation over a long time?
First of all, We cannot help doubting the response by the Court that tries to make sense out of nonsense, arguing that he "replied" when he simply looked in one direction.
According to Kojien (famous Japanese dictionary), response or responding is described as follows: "to answer after being talked to by someone or being asked a question; answer." Looking at something is not equal to "responding" within the context of Japanese language.
We cannot help suspecting impatience on the side of the Court, as they had to twist the argument to such an excessive extent.
The Court also claimed that our father had a characteristic to respond to the word "defense attorney" with smile. They might have meant that our father was normal but was not able to communicate because the other party was a "defense attorney" which would have been different if it was a judge. They are only trying to make sense out of nonsense, as far as even his family is not successfully communicating with him. Our father just irrelevantly smiles on his own and repeats nodding in front of anyone or whether or not he hears any words or does not hear anything.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)